Hi everyone... 1st time poster here. So i've gotten back into tennis in the past few months from over a 12 year hiatus, and obviously a lot has changed.

So reading forums, internet postings, etc. I realize that people are now doing this thing called MTM... and I find the term confusing. My understanding is that it has a lot to do how forehands are hit but still it seems to relate to how the overall game of tennis is approached.

So my question is where is the line drawn on MTM and who are some examples of old school vs MTM? and do I play MTM?

Is agassi MTM? Jim courier? I feel that they do play MTM, so is the term now even outdated? Is Sampras MTM? Federer? Is there anyone on the tour who is NOT MTM?

Do I play MTM (I used to play competitively… does it even matter?)? I deploy an eastern forehand… hit wide shots w/ open stance, but for short shots I step into it with a closed stance (how could you not?!?!). I have a 1 handed backhand and play an all-round game. Frequently deploy slice approach shots. I love hitting shots on the rise and taking the net whenever possible.

Can someone explain all this? I frequently find people here arguing about this topic and I get the sense that they don’t all have the same definition of MTM to begin with which leads to pointless arguments. Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks!

Assuming that your first post isn't trolling, I'll give you a brief answer.

MTM I believe stands for Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology. It is the way Wegner teaches tennis and supposedly is based on his observations of how pros play.

It doesn't make sense to ask if Agassi or Courier play MTM, as neither were Wegner's students as far as I know. If anything, you'll need to ask Wegner if he is basing the technique he is teaching on the model of some pro player.

There are plenty of other tennis professionals who teach what they'll claim to be "modern" pro technique and many of these same people disagree with Wegner. So, unless you are just looking to start a fight, it is best to look at what Wegner teaches and then compare it to what you do. If you really want to know for certain, I advise taking some classes from Wegner or one of his coaches and ask them.

Assuming that your first post isn't trolling, I'll give you a brief answer.

MTM I believe stands for Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology. It is the way Wegner teaches tennis and supposedly is based on his observations of how pros play.

It doesn't make sense to ask if Agassi or Courier play MTM, as neither were Wegner's students as far as I know. If anything, you'll need to ask Wegner if he is basing the technique he is teaching on the model of some pro player.

There are plenty of other tennis professionals who teach what they'll claim to be "modern" pro technique and many of these same people disagree with Wegner. So, unless you are just looking to start a fight, it is best to look at what Wegner teaches and then compare it to what you do. If you really want to know for certain, I advise taking some classes from Wegner or one of his coaches and ask them.

Click to expand...

No troll here... like i said, i've been away for a while and am surprised/fascinated to find that there's this "new way to play tennis" that I had never heard of before.

No troll here... like i said, i've been away for a while and am surprised/fascinated to find that there's this "new way to play tennis" that I had never heard of before.

Click to expand...

OK, I believe you. It is just that people here like to fight about it.

I'm sure Wegner can speak for himself if he sees this thread, as he sometimes posts here, but my understanding is that he claims MTM is a way to quickly learn how to play like the modern pros. Take that as you will. I don't think he's claiming that he's developed a new way to play tennis, but I don't know his stuff so I won't speak for him.

thx wildvolley... its just that when i read some postings, im wondering if I missed something in the past 10 years that would cause me to become less competitive (if i choose to go down that path).

For example, this is one quote from another thread:

"You don't have to take it on faith. In addition to World class "elite" players, there are tens of thousands of non elite pros, college players, high school players, and tournament juniors, all over the World, none of whom are being taught old school methods, except for those unfortunate few whose coaches don't know how to teach modern technique, just as there are numerous levels of skiing skill between you and Bode Miller. And for those few, a bad beating or two in match play will usually encourage them to seek competent modern coaching as well.

The rationale behind my point has been expressed at least a half dozen times on this thread if you had read it. Modern technique works better with modern racquets, and you will be a better player if you learn modern technique rather than obsolete technique."

I have my own understanding of "modern" technique and that mostly just means things like more "western" grips (semi-western probably being the most common), heavy topspin, open stances on the forehand, 2hbh, etc.

I think that Wegner wants to distinguish himself from those who teach hitting "through" the ball, eastern forehand grips, closed stance, etc, for beginners.

Wegner does a good job of marketing and you'll find his defenders and detractors both posting here. A lot of people teach based on what they see today's pros do (I consider myself someone heavily influenced by video), and they never took a lesson from Wegner.

OK, I believe you. It is just that people here like to fight about it.

I'm sure Wegner can speak for himself if he sees this thread, as he sometimes posts here, but my understanding is that he claims MTM is a way to quickly learn how to play like the modern pros. Take that as you will. I don't think he's claiming that he's developed a new way to play tennis, but I don't know his stuff so I won't speak for him.

Click to expand...

WildVolley has done a nice job of answering the question and I'll just add that
MTM is an "Instructional Method" designed to help players learn to swing the
racket more like most of the top players do.

As you can see where sureshs is already made several attempts to get his trolling
2 cents in (and likely to continue trying to push some unknown agenda),
but really there is little need for controversy.
MTM is a name of a teaching system more than a type of play, although it
would make sense that a type of play will result to some extent. THe intent
is that students of MTM will have strokes that work more like the pros than
the old classic method of teaching provides.
Even the instructors and proponents of Classic admit the strokes must morph
over or be relearned for transition to high performance, tournament tennis.

MTM intends to avoid the steps of learning classic and morphing by beginning
with instruction intended
to work more like the best Pro players, right from the start. Even if one needs
to claim they are not exactly like the pros, most would have to honestly admit
that any adjustment would be small.
The idea before was that classic/traditional strokes were easier, but MTM
instructors find that tournament strokes are even easier than classic, so no
reason not to start with the high performance based technique from the start.

The rationale behind my point has been expressed at least a half dozen times on this thread if you had read it. Modern technique works better with modern racquets, and you will be a better player if you learn modern technique rather than obsolete technique."

Click to expand...

This above is somewhat of a flawed logic that confuses many on the subject, but
is still a true statement overall.

Actually pretty much anything works better with modern rackets and MTM
instruction was developed when players where using wood rackets....so there
is not quite the connection that is implied, although I'm happy to agree that
modern rackets make the need greater to use more modern strokes and modern
rackets tend to highlight the weaknesses of traditional instruction.

but for short shots I step into it with a closed stance (how could you not?!?!).

Can someone explain all this? I frequently find people here arguing about this topic and I get the sense that they don’t all have the same definition of MTM to begin with which leads to pointless arguments. Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Last question above first. I'm glad to explain,... and my background was playing/instructing
over 20yrs of traditional, before moving on to MTM instruction, so you might
want to consider that when looking for answers. Posters like sureshs have a
limited experience even in classic, but don't even have a beginners grasp of
MTM. Not sure how he feels that makes him helpful to anyone with questions
on this subject.

MTM players on tour-
Most players on tour are good examples of what MTM teaches, but each player
may have an area or 2 that is out of line with most of the rest of the best players.
Several tour players parents have reported that they used Oscar's
books to coach their kids.

"but for short shots I step into it with a closed stance (how could you not?!?!)."
Well that is something you could learn about with MTM. Yes, many players
must take a step at times to create a good contact point, but the best players
normally lift more than move forward into the shot for TS (modern slice you do
continue forward) shots.

After having taken a look at his website and watched a few of the Youtube videos, my main understanding is that Wegner believes that traditional tennis instruction is too complicated, that it doesn't make sense to teach beginners differently than pros, and that the focus should be on the racquet rather than taking away attention by focusing on footwork, early setup, etc. I ordered his DVDs yesterday night (late-night retail therapy) and will soon be able to find out more

After having taken a look at his website and watched a few of the Youtube videos, my main understanding is that Wegner believes that traditional tennis instruction is too complicated, that it doesn't make sense to teach beginners differently than pros, and that the focus should be on the racquet rather than taking away attention by focusing on footwork, early setup, etc. I ordered his DVDs yesterday night (late-night retail therapy) and will soon be able to find out more

Click to expand...

I have been playing about 35 years. Studied Vic Braden's book Tennis for the Future 35 years ago and bought the Oscar's MTM book about 5 years ago. Both are good and there are really a lot of similarities. I like Oscar's simple approach but there are a few things lacking. Most pros have very good shoulder turn/prep even when hitting open stance FH - Oscar does not stress shoulder turn/prep. His sections on the serve, volley, and 2HBH also seem a bit brief - they provide a basic approach but not advanced level instruction. But, maybe that's Oscar's philosphy - "keep it simple stupid" and a lot of the things will happen naturally.

By the way, if you play like Jimmy Connors or Chris Evertt, you are a classic or traditional type player. If you play like David Ferrer or Roger Federer, you are a modern player.

I like Oscar's simple approach but there are a few things lacking. Most pros have very good shoulder turn/prep even when hitting open stance FH - Oscar does not stress shoulder turn/prep. His sections on the serve, volley, and 2HBH also seem a bit brief - they provide a basic approach but not advanced level instruction. But, maybe that's Oscar's philosphy - "keep it simple stupid" and a lot of the things will happen naturally..

Click to expand...

I don't quite agree that it's lacking, but think you got it right overall and summed
it up well in the end. I think there is a reasonable assumption that as you start
becoming a more advanced, the basics do lead to many things happening normally
or naturally with just a little guidance. Mostly take any little league player and
ask him to throw farther or harder and he will use more shoulder turn without
even thinking about it. When Oscar works with a higher level player, things like this
will be mentioned if needed, but with MTM strokes, power is never a issue in my
experience teaching it, as it just comes on as they learn. Amazing how much talk
about creating power there is on here, but my experience is more in having to
teach players to control power rather than generate it. My players are always
powerful and just need guidance to control the power.
Nice post on your experience.

Can you say a bit more about these modern slices, volleys, and serves? I wasn't aware that there was a "modern" version of those.

Click to expand...

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and youneed the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

I happened to see Doug King's video on TennisOne about orienting to the ball and talking about angular momentum when something clicked. Here was a normal American coach (not MTM affiliated as far as I know) basically describing a similar shot as Oscar.

I went to the wall and it clicked even more. In the past, I'd feel like I was hitting the ball really well, but I couldn't build on it because I'd eventually try to frame the shot w/ the goal of hitting through 3-4 balls in a line rather than deflecting and accelerating.

This isn't a bad shot and has gotten me to 4.0, but I feel that I can hit the ball just as consistent and w/ more spin w/ his method.

Back to the videos of Oscar, I think he may be exaggerating the motion? I initially dismissed it b/c I thought he was just arming the ball over the net...

I have his book now. I think the next level of the club will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

I have his book now. I think the next level will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

Click to expand...

Welcome aboard to modern methods. Sorry but I removed the part of the quote
I think is offensive.

Stalking is a very small part of the process to describe how you turn to and go to
the ball and just helps you to have the racket in place for the next stage.
Most instructions seems to skip over moving to the ball and just start with
a unit turn, which is fine if the ball is coming right to you. I like how MTM
includes the move to the ball stalking aspect.

Welcome aboard to modern methods. Sorry but I removed the part of the quote
I think is offensive.

Stalking is a very small part of the process to describe how you turn to and go to
the ball and just helps you to have the racket in place for the next stage.
Most instructions seems to skip over moving to the ball and just start with
a unit turn, which is fine if the ball is coming right to you. I like how MTM
includes the move to the ball stalking aspect.

Click to expand...

Offensive? Do you mean the "cult". If so I apologize; it's meant to be self-depricating humor as I'm part of it as well!

One other thing I find is that it seems more anatomic to pull across on the 1h-BH. I find more confidence to use topspin BH recently whereas in the past I limited to slice BH. Again, I'd shoot myself in the foot trying to hit 3-4 balls in a row and struggled w/ consistency except on slower balls.

Offensive? If so I apologize; it's meant to be self-depricating humor as I'm part of it as well!

One other thing I find is that it seems more anatomic to pull across on the 1h-BH. I find more confidence to use topspin BH recently whereas in the past I limited to slice BH. Again, I'd shoot myself in the foot trying to hit 3-4 balls in a row and struggled w/ consistency except on slower balls.

Click to expand...

No offence taken from you on that comment and maybe you are smart to
embrace it that way.
I just try to avoid that mentality as much as I can, and not repeat their high
school name calling routines.
And yes, it is amazing how when you have an open mind and learn to work
across the ball ...how well it works!

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and youneed the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

Click to expand...

Would you have any links to vids illustrating this? Not sure if I am picturing the shot differently.

I just recently started slicing "offensively" as opposed to slicing only on defense. It has been pretty effective for preventing an attack and soliciting a weak return. I'm not sure if I'm hitting it in a classic or modern way, but my main priority is driving the ball and keeping it low with a flat trajectory, I'm still putting aggressive spin on it but maximizing spin hasn't been the main priority, and there is some sidespin. I get the feeling that it is skidding a bit on the bounce.

Before, I tried hitting slices a lot of spin, both underspin and sidespin. The shot was fairly slow, travelled in a arc (up/down) and also with a sidespin arc. However, this shot sat up too much after the bounce, the sidespin didn't bother the better players much, and they could hit a pretty good shot off of it. Which is why I previously stopped slicing from the baseline if I could avoid it.

5263..which one of the following will be a true statement if one has answer the op in a simple way..

1. MTM is not a new discovery or invention of any new technique or methodology. But it is a compilation of simple steps that was put together by observing the top elite players play the shots, so everyone can follow and benefit out of it.

2. MTM is collection of new techniques/methodology that some one figured out on his/her own and put together as a way to LEARN how to play the game including top players and club level players.

I happened to see Doug King's video on TennisOne about orienting to the ball and talking about angular momentum when something clicked. Here was a normal American coach (not MTM affiliated as far as I know) basically describing a similar shot as Oscar.

I went to the wall and it clicked even more. In the past, I'd feel like I was hitting the ball really well, but I couldn't build on it because I'd eventually try to frame the shot w/ the goal of hitting through 3-4 balls in a line rather than deflecting and accelerating.

This isn't a bad shot and has gotten me to 4.0, but I feel that I can hit the ball just as consistent and w/ more spin w/ his method.

Back to the videos of Oscar, I think he may be exaggerating the motion? I initially dismissed it b/c I thought he was just arming the ball over the net...

I have his book now. I think the next level of the club will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

Click to expand...

Hopefully the few videos we have access to of this method being actually played by teacher and student (as opposed to the example videos of pros who have never been taught by this method) are exaggerations and not about how tennis should actually be played.

5263..which one of the following will be a true statement if one has answer the op in a simple way..

1. MTM is not a new discovery or invention of any new technique or methodology. But it is a compilation of simple steps that was put together by observing the top elite players play the shots, so everyone can follow and benefit out of it.

2. MTM is collection of new techniques/methodology that some one figured out on his/her own and put together as a way to LEARN how to play the game including top players and club level players.

3. Or is it something else, if so please help us understand.

Click to expand...

I like these points. To me, the "someone" is not the obvious suspect. The person who has provided real examples of the evolution of the game and has studied subtle differences between old and new is 5263. As I have said before, I think he is a great coach and one who continues to learn. Other coaches may also be great, but they are not necessarily fixated on the old-new comparisons. It is clear to me he is far superior to the leader, and instead of muddying the waters, he should strike out on his own. Otherwise he will be constantly fighting remarks like a poster made above of the videos showing ridiculous ways of playing, and defending someone else. I never got any specific answers or any useful observations from the leader in the famous deleted thread, just a lot of hand-waving when people probed the claims.

My biggest problem with Oscar's teaching is that it is incomplete. I watched his instant stream videos online, and after 2 months it seemed like he left out a lot of important information about how to execute his style of forehand. I'm really good at learning physical motion, but he simply does not provide enough information.

I'm not the only person who has said this.

The best video he has available for streaming is the 53 drills video, and the best aspect of that video is when John Frausto is teaching.

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and youneed the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

Click to expand...

I believe the across part is incredibly incorrect. wegner is not a biomechanics guy at all, I would not call him a modern coach. although his movements at least mimic the modern style (I never heard him talking about the kinetic chain though).

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

wegner seems to believe that what happens with the racket during contact greatly influences the ball (he states that you swing to the ball slowly and then accelerate to "push" the ball. he even calls this double hit).

biomechanical studies have shown that this is wrong. the contact time is actually so short that nothing matters after the strings first touch the ball since the vibrations reach the hand after the ball has left the strings. you could actually release the racket before impact and have the same result (won't work in practice of course).

My biggest problem with Oscar's teaching is that it is incomplete. I watched his instant stream videos online, and after 2 months it seemed like he left out a lot of important information about how to execute his style of forehand. I'm really good at learning physical motion, but he simply does not provide enough information.

I'm not the only person who has said this.

The best video he has available for streaming is the 53 drills video, and the best aspect of that video is when John Frausto is teaching.

Click to expand...

The incompleteness was pointed out by a couple of people who then used his ideas but struck out on their own pitching a complete method (in the UK).

The way forward for MTM2 led by 5263 should be:

Lose the philosophical aspects - no need to be profound about simple issues

Build a complete system of all strokes and footwork - not harp on the forehand and then try to bolt on other stuff from here and there

Lose the criticism of other coaches and the psychological baggage of ancient fights

Pitch it as a teaching method for beginning to advanced club players which incorporates pro aspects, and lose any tenuous links to pros which can be questioned

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

Click to expand...

The poster called Cheetah has been getting me to incorporate body rotation and it is working, though I need to work on it more. That is where the effortless force comes from. It also removes arming of the ball. Hitting across the ball gives the impression of a conscious swing and emphasizes the arm, which is not good.

No troll here... like i said, i've been away for a while and am surprised/fascinated to find that there's this "new way to play tennis" that I had never heard of before.

Click to expand...

I think you are getting some great advise on what mtm represents from many here and if you give it a chance I think you will find it very useful. The only good advise I can give you is to not pay any attention to sureshs, this guy is stuck at 3.5 level for life and does nothing but bash mtm teaching.

He actually had a chance to take a lesson with Oscar but was to stupid to follow through with it. I think he would have had to eat his words then so that is why he did not take the lesson. He lives to knock mtm or anything about Oscar Wegner.

I believe the across part is incredibly incorrect. wegner is not a biomechanics guy at all, I would not call him a modern coach. although his movements at least mimic the modern style (I never heard him talking about the kinetic chain though).

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

wegner seems to believe that what happens with the racket during contact greatly influences the ball (he states that you swing to the ball slowly and then accelerate to "push" the ball. he even calls this double hit).

biomechanical studies have shown that this is wrong. the contact time is actually so short that nothing matters after the strings first touch the ball since the vibrations reach the hand after the ball has left the strings. you could actually release the racket before impact and have the same result (won't work in practice of course).

The poster called Cheetah has been getting me to incorporate body rotation and it is working, though I need to work on it more. That is where the effortless force comes from. It also removes arming of the ball. Hitting across the ball gives the impression of a conscious swing and emphasizes the arm, which is not good.

There are many teachers and teaching methodogies. What to call "modern" is an argument that has many sides and has provoked a lot of disagreement here.

Everyone has the right to believe as they wish and follow what ever approach works for them. And to state their opinion as well.

Here's mine:

There is too much made of the distinctions between classical and modern. The word classical is often used as an insult or a sign that a coach doesn't understand what is "really" happening.

The fact is that in the history of tennis all the things we now associate with "modern" tennis--more underneath grips, open stances, heavy topspin, windshield wiper finishes, reverse finishes--all those things were used by the great players of the past. They weren't "invented" in the modern era.

What has changed is the frequency and predominance of shots and technical elements that were more the exception in the past. Borg started this change probably.

But interestingly, huge flat groundstrokes dominated the era after Bjorn. Agassi and Sampras and before them Connors. Well into the 90s serve and volley tennis was equally viable: Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe were truly dominant players.

The guys of that era who played what we think of as "modern" style--heavy topspin, deep court positions, long grueling attrition driven matches--these guys while obviously great were the second tier players except on red clay.
Guys like Bruguera, Muster, Courier.

The graphite rackets were obviously universal at this point but what really changed it for good was the combination of the rackets and poly string. They killed serve and volley.

So that's one thing that is important to understand. But does that mean there is one thing that is "modern tennis?"

Is Federer for example, a "modern" player technically speaking? He has an eastern grip on his forehand--and combines that with more wiper finishes than anyone. He can hit heavy spin, but really he wants to stand in, take the ball early and just crush people by attacking the open court. Really the player he is most like in this sense is probably Connors. And like Connors he mixes in the net. Unlike the vast majority of modern players he has a one-handed backhand with a classic eastern backhand grip and hits a much higher percentage of slice than any top player. Is that modern or some hybrid?

Is there a quintessential modern player? Nadal? Is anyone really surprised at his injuries and mental exhaustion considering his style? If that is modern extreme is it in any way a model for even a very small number of players?

Is it Novak? What is fascinating is he has taken the baseline war of attrition to a new level by playing it from nearly as close in as Fed. His spin rates are almost indentical to Fed and 20% less than Nadal. And the arc of his ball is also much flatter than Nadal--more like Fed.

Murray? Delpo? JoWillie? How about Raonic? OK we can keep going down the list. All these champions play differently.

The point is I don't think we can say that there is some unitary entity called modern tennis. There are too many complexities and variations to say there is one way to play the "modern" game.

Which leads to the next questions: how do "modern" teaching methods actually correspond to the variety of things modern players do? And which of them are applicable to whom at what level and with what result?

Not on second serves. They do that on the serves which are more flat. It is a complex issue related to the timing when they catch the ball, the dwell time, and the time the ball actually leaves the strings.

What exactly I have to do to hit across the ball. I’ve never was able to comprehend MTM explanations.

Click to expand...

Many of the terms are made up. That is why there is no explanation behind them. They are of the type that they cannot be contradicted but are not useful either, because they are just too vague or generalized, or not fundamental but the result of something else.

For example, if the arm remains attached to the body and swings in an arc, at some point it has to start turning back! Otherwise the arm must keep growing longer and longer, or must become separated from the body! However, the statement that pros pull back at contact is not correct because it gives the impression of conscious action. When you point that out, the reply is that the arm does come back, doesn't it? So you see how it is useless trying to argue this kind of thing.

One cannot totally discard MTM. For a kid to start with from scratch, it may be really really helpful. They have broken down stuff into easy small steps. Guess the name throws a lot of people off.

Click to expand...

I agree! Although my biggest complaint is that Oscar doesn't really define any true fundamentals or clear steps to developing the forehand. I really like how he teaches volleying, the serve, and I find his style of backhand very useful.

Ultimately, I believe MTM is a victim of its own hyperbole.
In defense of MTM:
My mother had to have lymph nodes removed for her arm, and she has been instructed to keep active so that she doesn't develop any serious complications. She has taken up tennis, and I find that Oscar's way of teaching the newest of newbies to be a great way. She immediately understood the concepts, and she is able to rally. His lift and pull across method is good for her condition.

How to progress from the lift and pull across technique to what we see on the ATP tour --- I'm not sure.

I believe the across part is incredibly incorrect. wegner is not a biomechanics guy at all, I would not call him a modern coach. although his movements at least mimic the modern style (I never heard him talking about the kinetic chain though).

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

wegner seems to believe that what happens with the racket during contact greatly influences the ball (he states that you swing to the ball slowly and then accelerate to "push" the ball. he even calls this double hit).

biomechanical studies have shown that this is wrong. the contact time is actually so short that nothing matters after the strings first touch the ball since the vibrations reach the hand after the ball has left the strings. you could actually release the racket before impact and have the same result (won't work in practice of course).

wonderful post outlining how you don't understand the MTM TS Fh and great
indication that you have little understanding of TS Fh in general.If you stay with the forum long enough to improve that understanding, it
will be entertaining to watch you attempt to rectify your above comments
(which I will save for you in case some are able to do their usual thing to
get this thread deleted), with what you come to learn about the TS Fh stroke
in time to come. Will you be the rare one to admit his mistake?
Too much misinfo to address in your post, but I'll just leave it
that until you gain the understanding of the importance racket working with
a side element to the topspin (from hitting across), your Fh will be lacking a
key principle in it's ability to control a rally....even if you are gaining the spin
by accident. Understanding it is a key in using it tactically as well as creating
it on the shots, so not understanding this principle is likely holding you 2 steps
behind.

Otherwise the arm must keep growing longer and longer, or must become separated from the body!

Click to expand...

While I agree the racket can never be swung on a straight line, do you actually
not understand how classic instruction attempts to do so thru several aspects
of it's training? So I guess you would also not understand what those aspects
are where the classic training attempts this, if you don't see how it attempts to
hit out thru 3-5 balls on a line to the target?

I agree! Although my biggest complaint is that Oscar doesn't really define any true fundamentals or clear steps to developing the forehand. I really like how he teaches volleying, the serve, and I find his style of backhand very useful.

Ultimately, I believe MTM is a victim of its own hyperbole.
In defense of MTM:
My mother had to have lymph nodes removed for her arm, and she has been instructed to keep active so that she doesn't develop any serious complications. She has taken up tennis, and I find that Oscar's way of teaching the newest of newbies to be a great way. She immediately understood the concepts, and she is able to rally. His lift and pull across method is good for her condition.

How to progress from the lift and pull across technique to what we see on the ATP tour --- I'm not sure.

Perhaps the MTM forehand is its own animal...:twisted:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words to MTM training, but interesting comments for sure.

you say he shares no true fundamentals, then go on to list a few?
you say no clear steps but even with your weak background in it, were able
to share with another beginner?
you say MTM is a victim, but share it's easy success?

and at last you speak of how good it is for a beginner, but think there is a gap
from it to the pros that you don't know how to bridge?
I ask you... how do you bridge a gap that does not exist?
If you you recognize a gap...what is it? other than more training and
experience?

I counter that all the true fundamental for strokes are there, but agree that
the progressions of steps to learning MTM are not available to those who
have not trained to be an instructor.

One cannot totally discard MTM. For a kid to start with from scratch, it may be really really helpful. They have broken down stuff into easy small steps. Guess the name throws a lot of people off.

Click to expand...

Yes, the success stories we have heard are like the one above of the "newest of newbies" who has to take some medical precautions, and supposedly a 70 year old man who has been playing for ever but did not know topspin.

As far as kids go, I have seen many go from scratch to advanced junior players with state and national rankings over the years that I have been playing, and not one of them has studied with a coach of this supposed methodology.

I think any success that this method has with adults is due to the following: adult coaching is horrible in general. Coaches make adults do drills which lead to no improvement. They make them pick up balls during the coaching hour. They do not correct the most basic of grip problems. Instead of teaching strokes, they teach strategy, because that is what the players want to hear about. Year after year passes as the student faithfully attends lessons, but no improvement. From an MTM standpoint, these people are ideal targets. Throw in a comparison with their older lessons, and to them, this method can seem the ultimate in instruction - simply because someone is actually pointing out their mistakes!